OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Lehigh City Council Meeting Summary - December 16, 2025

Meeting Portal — Tuesday, December 16, 2025
BodyLehi, Utah
SessionMeeting Portal
DateTuesday, December 16, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:52:37

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

What if multiple individuals call in at the same time or record all those all those uh comments?

0:06

It will.

0:06

Okay.

0:07

They have a way to take them and just call on them as they come or whatnot.

0:11

Yeah, we have to use a 1-800 number or a toll-free number, I should say, and that's the reason to have the the uh the phone call uh be that and we'll have to use the best decorum that we can to ensure that everyone gets a chance.

0:28

We'll err on the side of caution to allow that um but uh but that would that would be how the hearing would be held.

0:36

Is there a is there a brief statement before they you know enter there so they can put their name and everything, but also this is this is what this is about, right?

0:46

Yes.

0:46

Yeah, we'll we'll uh explain what it's for and then we'll ask for names of those who would like to speak and then we'll read their name and give them a chance to to speak should they be interested.

0:59

Questions?

1:00

Just quick question.

1:01

Is it so is it all call in then in person?

1:04

Correct.

1:07

Yeah, I mean bean got this in the email and and uh I I should just fall on my sword a little bit here.

1:18

We have used the state process, right?

1:21

Which was a hearing, a discussion, it was noticed in the paper, etcetera.

1:26

The the TEFRA or federal treasury hearing is is not as robust as that.

1:32

But we usually try to do them both at the same time.

1:36

And uh when we've done these types of deals before, we've just relied upon the location by virtue of the project itself.

1:44

My tax group came to me and said we're concerned because there's been emphasis recently in the last couple of years on a street address.

1:54

I mean, I'm not sure anyone in Lehigh doesn't know where Thanksgiving point is, but uh there are some inexperienced auditors that may choose to get hung up on that.

2:06

We all believe we would prevail.

2:07

I don't think anyone's gonna have standing to say they didn't know where Thanksgiving point was in the state law process, but just to avoid the argument and extricating ourselves from that is the reason for recommending holding this uh uh TEFRA TEFRA hearing.

2:22

And and I I honestly apologize.

2:25

Um that's just something new since the last time we did a deal like this.

2:30

But at the same time, that's why we use people like Randy and their firm is because there's things going on all over the country.

2:36

It's not just Randy and his team here.

2:38

They has people all over the you know, the tax specialists that are just help us to make sure we're we're uh 100% clean.

2:45

So that's all it is.

2:47

And there will be no action at the hearing, right?

2:52

I mean, there will be no legislative action, no governmental action, it's just opening the closing the hearing.

3:02

Any other questions?

3:04

I assume we'll get a printout of all the comments.

3:08

We'll be keeping minutes for that.

3:10

Okay.

3:10

Yes.

3:13

Okay.

3:16

Sorry you drove all the way here for that.

3:18

I'm I'm I'm on my way to a certain basketball game.

3:21

So you will go timely that's why the traffic's bad.

3:25

Well, not the way I was coming, but now it will.

3:28

Now it will be thank you.

3:31

Okay.

3:35

Uh item uh 2.3 is discussion of Cody Black's proposal to prepare a development agreement for a light manufacturing research and development business within the mixed use on a property located at 870 north 100 east.

3:49

That is going to be followed by 2.4, which is will be related to that discussion, and that's a discussion of the development agreement review and approval process.

3:57

And I tell you the reason we're doing that is because to have item two point three listed on the the agenda, that's we've never done it this way before.

4:08

Uh developer agreements are important and they're an important part of the process, but they've always followed a particular order.

4:15

Uh when we looked at it and we'd seen in the in the uh in the code that that order was not clear, that's what item 2.4 is.

4:26

But normally uh for a developer agreement, the council is the legislative body.

4:32

They have the right to make decisions, they have the right to uh to change uh legislation, local legislation, and they're often encouraged to do that.

4:41

They also have the responsibility to make sure that people's personal property rights are protected, and in that process they have the right to uh the the applicant has the right to do process, which means he come in can come in and make the argument that they're being treated unfairly because of the way the code is written, and then that is an opportunity.

5:04

The states decided that's an opportunity for development agreements to take place so that the legislative body can evaluate the situation and make changes if necessary so that that person's property rights are protected.

5:18

So it's a pretty important uh factor in the constitution.

5:22

However, you know, this item tonight, it's just out of the ordinary to do it this way.

5:27

And I just want you to keep that in mind on this this uh item and also 2.4 as we try to make sure that that's clear in the future.

5:37

So item 2.3, the applicant can come up, please.

5:43

Hi, I'm Jonathan Schultz.

5:45

It said Cody Black, but he's my realtor.

5:48

So yeah, so I'm new to this.

5:52

Uh we're looking at making very small suspension components.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Planning and Zoning██████████████████████████████30%
Procedural██████████████████18%
Community Development██████████10%
Public Engagement█████5%
Water And Wastewater Management█████5%
Economic Development████4%
Engineering And Infrastructure████4%
Parking Management████4%
Affordable Housing████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Lehigh City Council Meeting - December 16, 2025

The Lehigh City Council convened for a regular session to address a wide array of agenda items, including development agreements, zoning changes, budget amendments, and the approval of the Downtown Revitalization Plan. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the proper procedures for initiating development agreements, ensuring land use applications are filed first, and reviewing the JDH property amendment. The council also voted on the Water's Edge development agreements, which were approved contingent on specific traffic and access conditions, while denying the associated zone changes. Additionally, the council adopted procedures for appointing a replacement council member to fill a current vacancy.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved General Agenda items with exceptions: Item 4.4 (Real Estate Purchase Contract) and Item 4.13 (Planning Commissioner appointments) were pulled for separate discussion.
  • The council approved resolutions to purchase land at 174 East 100 North for future police parking expansion (Resolution 2025-98) via roll call vote.
  • The council appointed Ken Roberts and Bo Jones as Planning Commission members, overriding procedural objections regarding the nomination process made by Council Member Paul.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Housing and Traffic Concerns: Members of the public expressed strong concern regarding the Downtown Revitalization Plan. Speakers argued that adding housing to the downtown core would exacerbate traffic congestion, contradict the city's driving culture, and that the survey data used (representing only 0.5% of the population) did not accurately reflect resident sentiment against increased density.
  • Support for Conservation: Representatives from Payson City and the Four Bay committee presented testimony in support of the conservation easement, emphasizing the need to preserve recreational space in Payson Canyon and trusting Lehigh to act as a neutral guardian.
  • Homeless and Safety Concerns: Residents raised specific concerns about the Water's Edge development, citing potential homelessness, security issues, and inadequate lighting in secluded areas, as well as fears about parking overflow affecting nearby businesses.

Discussion Items

  • Development Agreement Process: Council members debated the procedural requirements for development agreements. The consensus was reached that a formal land use application must be filed first to satisfy state code (Utah Code 10-9A-532), followed by potential direction to staff to enter into a development agreement if the council finds the specific use appropriate but the code restrictive. This discussion arose from a proposal by a startup for light manufacturing in a mixed-use zone.
  • Downtown Revitalization Plan: The council debated Ordinance 67-2025. Council Member Chris argued that tabling the visionary document due to a new council administration was unnecessary fear-based governance, while Council Member Paul and others expressed concerns about traffic, parking, and the lack of public transit in the proposed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas. The motion to table failed, and the vote proceeded.
  • Water's Edge Development Agreements: Extensive discussion occurred regarding Resolution 2025-92. Council Member Michelle Stallings raised concerns about lack of parking if TOD standards were reduced without the promised transit, and questions were raised about securing access to American Fork and the phasing of the hotel vs. residential units. Modifications were made to require a parking study inclusive of surrounding uses and to mandate that if American Fork access is not secured, the applicant must return to council for re-evaluation.
  • JDH Property Amendment: Discussion focused on the amendment to the West Development Agreement (Resolution 2025-93) to add 30 units. Questions were raised regarding whether the city received sufficient compensation for the increased density and the need to maintain trail connectivity. Staff confirmed that previous negotiations involving the Hospital and Sanctuary agreements provided the necessary infrastructure swaps.
  • Vacancy Appointment Procedures: The council adopted Resolution 2025-95 to govern the appointment of a new council member. A discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of state statutes concerning the Mayor's role in breaking ties during the candidate narrowing process, resulting in a reference to the broader statutory provisions (20A-5-10(1)) rather than a specific method.
  • Water Use and Preservation Element: Council reviewed Ordinance 71-2025, which mandates a water conservation element under state law. Discussion included the technical aspects of aquifer strata, park strip maintenance, and the ongoing process for determining future water rates based on new metering data.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved: Ordinance 67-2025: Downtown Revitalization Plan and State Street Station Area Plan (Vote: 4 Yes, 1 No).
  • Approved: Ordinance 71-2025: Water Use and Preservation Element of the General Plan (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No).
  • Approved: Ordinance 68-2025: Gurney Property Zone Change (TH5 to R122) (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No).
  • Approved: Ordinance 69-2025: Lease-Meet-Lee Zone Change (RA1 to Commercial) (Vote: 3 Yes, 1 No).
  • Approved: Resolution 2025-91: Hammond Development Agreement (Light Office/Warehouse) (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No).
  • Denied: Ordinance 70-2025: Hemond Zone Change (Mixed Use to Heavy Commercial) (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No) - Denied based on the prior approval of the Hammond Development Agreement.
  • Approved: Resolution 2025-92: Water's Edge Development Agreement (330 ERUs/Hotel) (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No) - Approved with modifications requiring a parking study and re-evaluation if American Fork access is not secured.
  • Denied: Ordinance 72-2025: Water's Edge General Plan Amendment (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No) - Denied to align with the approved development agreement.
  • Approved: Resolution 2025-93: JDH Property Development Agreement Amendment (+30 units) (Vote: 3 Yes, 2 No).
  • Approved: Resolution 2025-94 (implied): Four Bay Recreation Area Conservation Easement (Vote: 4 Yes, 0 No).
  • Adopted: Resolution 2025-95: Procedures for Filling Council Vacancy.
  • Budget: Approved Resolution 2025-90: Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2025-26, including water revenue bond issuance for irrigation meters and fiber network infrastructure integration.
  • Public Hearing: Held for water revenue bonds (5.1) and budget amending (5.2); no votes required, only comments received.

Meeting Transcript

What if multiple individuals call in at the same time or record all those all those uh comments? It will. Okay. They have a way to take them and just call on them as they come or whatnot. Yeah, we have to use a 1-800 number or a toll-free number, I should say, and that's the reason to have the the uh the phone call uh be that and we'll have to use the best decorum that we can to ensure that everyone gets a chance. We'll err on the side of caution to allow that um but uh but that would that would be how the hearing would be held. Is there a is there a brief statement before they you know enter there so they can put their name and everything, but also this is this is what this is about, right? Yes. Yeah, we'll we'll uh explain what it's for and then we'll ask for names of those who would like to speak and then we'll read their name and give them a chance to to speak should they be interested. Questions? Just quick question. Is it so is it all call in then in person? Correct. Yeah, I mean bean got this in the email and and uh I I should just fall on my sword a little bit here. We have used the state process, right? Which was a hearing, a discussion, it was noticed in the paper, etcetera. The the TEFRA or federal treasury hearing is is not as robust as that. But we usually try to do them both at the same time. And uh when we've done these types of deals before, we've just relied upon the location by virtue of the project itself. My tax group came to me and said we're concerned because there's been emphasis recently in the last couple of years on a street address. I mean, I'm not sure anyone in Lehigh doesn't know where Thanksgiving point is, but uh there are some inexperienced auditors that may choose to get hung up on that. We all believe we would prevail. I don't think anyone's gonna have standing to say they didn't know where Thanksgiving point was in the state law process, but just to avoid the argument and extricating ourselves from that is the reason for recommending holding this uh uh TEFRA TEFRA hearing. And and I I honestly apologize. Um that's just something new since the last time we did a deal like this. But at the same time, that's why we use people like Randy and their firm is because there's things going on all over the country. It's not just Randy and his team here. They has people all over the you know, the tax specialists that are just help us to make sure we're we're uh 100% clean. So that's all it is. And there will be no action at the hearing, right? I mean, there will be no legislative action, no governmental action, it's just opening the closing the hearing. Any other questions? I assume we'll get a printout of all the comments. We'll be keeping minutes for that. Okay. Yes. Okay. Sorry you drove all the way here for that. I'm I'm I'm on my way to a certain basketball game. So you will go timely that's why the traffic's bad. Well, not the way I was coming, but now it will. Now it will be thank you. Okay. Uh item uh 2.3 is discussion of Cody Black's proposal to prepare a development agreement for a light manufacturing research and development business within the mixed use on a property located at 870 north 100 east. That is going to be followed by 2.4, which is will be related to that discussion, and that's a discussion of the development agreement review and approval process. And I tell you the reason we're doing that is because to have item two point three listed on the the agenda, that's we've never done it this way before. Uh developer agreements are important and they're an important part of the process, but they've always followed a particular order. Uh when we looked at it and we'd seen in the in the uh in the code that that order was not clear, that's what item 2.4 is. But normally uh for a developer agreement, the council is the legislative body. They have the right to make decisions, they have the right to uh to change uh legislation, local legislation, and they're often encouraged to do that.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com